Which would be the relevant date for consideration and determination of the nature of the land as ‘deemed forest’ i.e., the date of coming into force of the Master Plan or the date on which the actual work on the project, as earmarked under the Master Plan, is initiated on the ground?

The date of coming into force of the Master Plan. In the absence of any contemporaneous material demonstrating that the land possessed the character of forest at the time of formation of the Master Plan, the subsequent proliferation of vegetation cannot alter its legal status or impede implementation of the development contemplated, and no permission or sanction of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 would be required.

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 — s.2 — Master Plan of Delhi, 2021 — "Forest land" — "Deemed forest" — Statutory binding force and sanctity of the Master Plan — Relevant date — Invasive alien species — Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 — s.2 — Land earmarked under an approved Master Plan — Efflux of time — Held: Land which is not forest land as per revenue record or a declared forest, nor fulfils the requirement of a deemed forest when a Master Plan comes into force, cannot with the efflux of time be declared a deemed forest. Changes on the ground due to natural or human intervention cannot override the statutory binding force and sanctity of the Master Plan. (¶47, 65) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 — s.2 — Determination of "deemed forest" — Relevant date — Held further: The relevant date for determining the nature of the land as deemed forest is the date of coming into force of the Master Plan, not the date work on the project is initiated on the ground. Absent contemporaneous material that the land bore the character of forest then, no prior approval of the Central Government is required. (¶60, 65) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 — s.2 — Invasive alien species — Natural forest ecosystem — Held further: Mere presence of vegetation or tree cover, particularly invasive alien species introduced through historical human intervention, cannot by itself be equated with the existence of a natural forest ecosystem. Transplantation of native species and compensatory afforestation directed; appeal disposed of. (¶54, 66, 67)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of NAVEEN SOLANKI AND ANOTHER v. RAIL LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India